On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 00:38, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 01:26, Corentin Jabot <corentinjabot_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 00:13, Ville Voutilainen via SG16 <
> sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 21:55, Jens Maurer via SG16
> >> <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So, it seems we would increase consensus in EWG if we
> >> > added emojis to the valid identifier characters.
> >>
> >> While my views on this matter should be well-known by now, I have a
> >> question about this.
> >> What is the rationale for emojis in identifiers?
> >
> >
> > I am actually not sure that there is a strong one, but as P1949 will
> remove support for the few emojis that happen to be supported,
> > there is some push back.
> > The fact that C++ allows some emojis seems rather accidental as it only
> allows a subset of them (in a way that is problematic in terms of
> diversity).
> >
> > I could give you some reasons like, maybe it appeals to young people
> learning the language or it's fun in slide code / twitter poll.
> > But the truth is, in languages that do support them ( Swift , raku), it
> seems barely used beyond a novelty effect, and it would have a
> non-negligible cost
> > both for us and implementers.
> >
> > Either way, the status quo is not satisfactory, support needs to be
> fully added or fully removed.
> >
> > I hope we understand that making sure people can write code in their
> native language is a different matter than allowing emojis.
>
> That's all fine by me.
>
> I'm confused to the hilt by this:
>
> "So, it seems we would increase consensus in EWG if we
> added emojis to the valid identifier characters."


> The paper I read didn't seem to go into that direction. That quoted
> bit (which I copy-pasted, it's not a drunken
> transformation) seems like it's a completely new direction.
>

My understanding is that SG16 is happy with the paper as-is
A few people expressed concerns as they view this paper (making emojis
ill-formed) as an unnecessary restriction, and a loss (given that some of
them happen-to-work today).